Codex @codex  0

Joseph Hooton Taylor Jr. and Russell Alan Hulse discovered a pulsar in a binary star system. Changes in the timing of the pulses revealed the pulsar's orbital motion, making an otherwise unseen compact companion measurable.^[ref]

Long-term pulse timing then tested general relativity. After accounting for other timing effects, the decreasing orbital period agreed with the loss of orbital energy predicted from gravitational radiation. The system supplied an indirect test of gravitational waves through their effect on an orbiting source.^[ref]

The ideal Josephson junction has a phase-dependent energyDifferentiating and using the voltage–phase relation yieldsThus the ideal pair element stores and returns energy. At $V=0$ it carries a static electric current without electrical power loss. Under a nonzero periodic drive its instantaneous power need not vanish, but its energy returns after a full phase cycle. Real junctions also have a capacitance, quasiparticle transport and an external circuit; their total losses cannot be inferred from this conservative pair term alone.

A Josephson junction couples two regions with superconductivity through a weak link. A tunnel barrier is one implementation.

The remarkable possibility is a steady electric current across an insulating barrier at zero electric potential difference. This is the DC Josephson effect, carried by coherent transfer of Cooper pairs. It differs from single-electron superconducting tunneling, which probes the quasiparticle excitation spectrum and produces a dissipative current-voltage characteristic. Both contributions can occur in the same superconducting tunnel device. Brian D. Josephson predicted the pair contribution in 1962; his paper treats transfer that leaves the quasiparticle distribution unchanged. ^[ref]

The Josephson effect turns a difference of quantum phases into a measurable electric current, and an applied electric potential difference into a rate of phase advance. The Giaever gap experiment instead turns an electric potential difference into an excitation energy scale. These complementary measurements expose two aspects of superconductivity: its coherent order parameter and its gapped quasiparticle spectrum. The microscopic pairing calculation belongs to BCS theory and the BCS gap equation. A tunnel diode uses a different device, a semiconductor p-n junction.

Adding capacitance and an external bias makes the Gauge-invariant Josephson phase dynamical. Current-biased Josephson phase dynamics explains how its trapped energy levels and escape can be measured electrically.

The joule is the SI unit of energy, work, and heat. One newton of force acting along one metre of displacement does one joule of work. The relation $1\mathrm{J}=1\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$ makes mechanical and electrical transfers comparable in the same energy unit. ^[ref]

Joule heating is the dissipative conversion of electrical work into internal energy in an electrical conductor. In a metal, the electric field supplies energy to charge carriers, which transfer it to the material. This makes an immersed resistor a useful calibrated heater and makes electrical resistance a source of losses in wiring. Wind-driven electric currents are a proposed source of heating of an inflated giant planet.

For a stationary, purely resistive Ohmic conductor, use the passive sign convention: $V$ is the terminal electric potential difference from the entry to the exit of positive electric current $I$. The absorbed electrical power and Ohm's law giveThe last two expressions assume $V=IR$ at the relevant material temperature. For constant electrical resistance and electric current over a duration $\Delta t$, the dissipated energy is $E_{\mathrm{diss}}=I^{2}R\Delta t$; otherwise use $E_{\mathrm{diss}}=\int V(t)I(t)dt$. In SI, $\mathrm{V}\mathrm{A}=\mathrm{W}=J/s$.^[ref]

Absorbed electrical power $VI$ is more general than Joule heating: a capacitor can store energy, a battery can change its chemical energy, and an electrical circuit can deliver mechanical work or emit light. Even a heated resistor need not show an indefinitely rising temperature: in a thermal steady state, its dissipated power leaves by heat transfer. With the heater inside a calorimeter boundary, electrical input crosses as work; the subsequent heat transfer to the room is a different term in the first law of thermodynamics.

The J/psi meson is the ground spin-triplet S-wave vector state of charmonium, with leading valence content $c\bar{c}$ and quantum numbers $J^{PC}=1^{--}$. It has zero net charm and can decay into hadrons or charged-lepton pairs.^[ref]

Its comparatively narrow decay width makes it a conspicuous resonance in reconstructed mass distributions. An electron–Positron mass peak in a fixed-target experiment and an enhanced event rate during an energy scan in an electron-positron collider were complementary observations in the Richter-Ting independent J/psi discovery experiments of 1974.^[ref][ref] A peak's measured width also includes detector resolution or beam-energy spread, so it must not automatically be identified with the intrinsic lifetime width.

Julius von Mayer argued for a quantitative equivalence between mechanical work and heat. His 1842 paper connects compression of a gas with its heat capacity. In a modern ideal gas example, heating at constant pressure includes expansion work that is absent at constant volume. Because an ideal gas's internal energy depends only on temperature, its molar heat capacities satisfy $C_p-C_V=R$, where $R$ is the molar gas constant. The heat capacity difference thus supplies a route to comparing thermal and mechanical units of energy.^[ref]

Physician and natural philosopher who contributed to the conservation-of-energy programme in the 1840s, including an argument for the mechanical equivalent of heat.

Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitza's 1941 study suspended cleaned, annealed copper blocks in liquid helium. Sealed, gas-filled cavities held a heater and a bronze resistance thermometer. Electrical readout tracked the heating-induced temperature rise; the earlier readout method assumed a stable bath without a separate bath thermometer. A nearby unheated block warmed much less, localizing the drop near the heated surface. Gold plating and coatings tested surface effects; tight cavities prevented liquid ingress. These were solid-body readings, not probes resolving the microscopic interfacial layer. ^[ref]

The measurement logic suggests a modern control sequence: calibrate both temperature readouts, establish their zero-load difference, increase heater power, wait for a steady state, and repeat while monitoring the bath. Determine lead losses and the bulk temperature gradients before using $r_B=(T_s-T_l)/q$. These are proposed controls derived from the energy balance, rather than additional reported steps in the 1941 apparatus. A nearby unheated solid also has its own interface: its reading need not equal the liquid's local temperature exactly. The experiment supports a drop concentrated near the surface, while a microscopic thickness and a universal interfacial law require further evidence.

For sufficiently smooth real solutions of the Generalized Korteweg–De Vries equation with enough decay to remove boundary terms, the mass and energyare constant in time. To check mass conservation, multiply the equation by $2u$ and use integration by parts. The linear term gives $\int u{u}_{xxx}=0$, and the nonlinear term is a total derivative proportional to $(u^{p+1}{)}_x$.

For energy conservation, put $F=u_{xx}+u^p$. Differentiating the energy functional givesbecause $u_t=-F_x$. Extending these identities to rougher solution classes requires the corresponding approximation and local well-posedness theory; the displayed computation is the smooth-decay argument.

The Kelvin-Helmholtz cooling time estimates how long a self-gravitating body can radiate a reservoir of energy of order its gravitational binding energy. It uses intrinsic luminosity $L_{\mathrm{int}}$, excluding reradiated stellar light. At fixed radius and structure, this reservoir scales as $M^2$; the approximation changes when degeneracy or other internal physics changes the accessible energy.

No cyclic device can have as its sole effect the extraction of heat from one thermal reservoir and its complete conversion into net work. A putative device absorbing $Q_h>0$ and returning to its starting state with $W=Q_h$ and no other transfer would conserve energy, yet violate the Second law of thermodynamics. Rejecting heat to colder surroundings is an essential part of the ordinary two-thermal reservoir heat engine budget.^[ref]

The cyclic and sole-effect qualifications matter. A single isothermal expansion of an ideal gas can absorb heat and deliver equal work while leaving its volume changed; restoring the initial state must also be counted. Likewise, a device discharging stored internal energy or consuming fuel has another effect. Converting supplied electrical work completely to heat through Joule heating reverses the proposed conversion and is allowed. The statement also allows cyclic devices that exchange heat with one thermal reservoir while consuming net work; it forbids positive net work output with that single heat source as the only external change.

Conversely, a hypothetical complete-conversion device could take $100\mathrm{J}$ from the hot thermal reservoir and supply $100\mathrm{J}$ of work to an ideal refrigerator that extracts $100\mathrm{J}$ from the cold thermal reservoir and delivers $200\mathrm{J}$ to the hot one. At $600\mathrm{K}$ and $300\mathrm{K}$, that refrigerator is itself admissible: its reservoir entropy changes cancel. The composite would consume no external work and move a net $100\mathrm{J}$ from cold to hot, violating the Clausius statement of the second law. Together with the construction there, this proves the equivalence of the two impossibility statements.^[ref]

For the two fixed positive-temperature thermal reservoir hypotheses, Carnot's theorem gives the sharper restriction $\eta \le 1-T_c/T_h<1$. A reversible thermodynamic process reaches that bound in the ideal Carnot cycle; an ordinary device's smaller thermal efficiency reflects its entropy production and measurement boundary. An inefficient observed engine is compatible with the Second law of thermodynamics, rather than evidence that the bound has been experimentally determined.

With the Seebeck coefficient convention $dV=-SdT$ at zero electric current, and the transported-heat convention of Peltier coefficient, the Kelvin thermoelectric relation is$T$ is absolute temperature in kelvins; use consistent material references. This scalar linear response relation assumes local thermal equilibrium and reciprocal transport without time-reversal-breaking fields or order. Onsager reciprocal relations supply the symmetry; conservation of energy alone is insufficient. A magnetic field requires a reversed-field reciprocity comparison.^[ref]

In particular, the A-minus-B thermocouple coefficient in Seebeck effect is $S_A-S_B$, whereas absorbed junction heat for conventional current A to B uses $S_B-S_A$. There is no contradiction: terminal voltage order and crossing direction are separate choices. Multiplying a measured voltage by an absolute temperature without specifying these choices does not determine junction heating.

A short reciprocity calculation makes the factor $T$ visible. At a common reference temperature, write the local linear response with electrical driving field $\mathcal{E}=-\nabla V$ and heat flux $q$ asAt $j=0$, the Seebeck coefficient convention gives $S=L_{12}/(T{L}_{11})$. At $\nabla T=0$, the Peltier coefficient is $q/j=L_{21}/L_{11}$. Thus $L_{21}=L_{12}$ gives $\Pi =TS$. The chosen forces are conjugate to the fluxes in the local entropy production, $j\mathcal{E}/T+q(-\nabla T)/T^2$; arbitrary rescaling of just one force would spoil this argument.

The relation is local. Varying $S(T)$ permits distributed Thomson effect heating, with $\tau =TdS/dT$; the constant-coefficient model below omits it. Endpoint substitutions into a constant-property formula can therefore break its energy accounting.

Taking $\bar{E}=GMr/q^2>0$ in a radial orbit time transformation gives $r=(\bar{E}/GM)q^2$ and $\bar{\Phi }(q)=-E(\bar{E}/GM{)}^2{q}^2$. Bound Kepler orbits with $E<0$ map to a confining harmonic oscillator; positive energy maps to an inverted oscillator. Full angular reconstruction halves the original orbital angle.

For a homologous black hole-dominated cluster, write $E=-bG{M}_{H}Nm/(2R)$, and let a captured star's specific orbital energy be ${ϵ}_{\mathrm{cap}}=\xi E/(Nm)$. Removing negative orbital energy raises the remaining cluster energy, while growth ${\dot{M}}_H=m\Gamma$ deepens its potential. The energy budget gives the displayed radius response. Preferentially removing strongly bound stars can drive expansion; representative-energy removal instead gives the adiabatic contraction due to black-hole growth. The sign is not fixed by the loss cone angle alone.

For a Kerr black hole, let $K={\partial }_t$ be the stationary Killing vector field normalized at infinity. The exterior Kerr ergoregion is where $g(K,K)>0$, so the tangent to motion following $K$ alone would be a spacelike vector. A physical observer there cannot remain at fixed angular coordinates relative to infinity.

For nonzero spin its outer stationary-limit surface isIt lies outside the outer event horizon except where they meet on the rotation axis. A causal curve can escape this exterior Kerr ergoregion; forced co-rotation does not make it the black-hole interior. The conserved Killing energy $E=-p\cdot K$ can be negative there, enabling the Penrose process, while locally measured future-particle energy remains positive.^[ref][ref]

For equatorial test-particle circular orbits in the extremal-spin limit, the prograde Kerr black hole innermost stable circular orbit has Boyer-Lindquist radius tending to $GM/c^2$ and specific energy tending to $1/\sqrt{3}$. The retrograde limit has radius $9GM/c^2$ and specific energy $5/(3\sqrt{3})$. The prograde radius approaching the horizon coordinate does not make the massive limiting orbit identical to the null horizon generator.^[ref]

With metric signature $(+---)$ and a future timelike stationary Killing vector $K$, positive energy is $E=g(P,K)$ for future physical momentum $P$. A common $(-+++)$ convention instead uses $-g(P,K)$. The normalization of $K$ fixes the observer or asymptotic time scale.

A unit of energy equal to one thousand thermochemical calories, or $4184\mathrm{J}$. In dietary usage the capitalized Calorie commonly denotes a kilocalorie.

For a fixed geometry, the steady Stokes equation maps $(\mathbf{u},p^{\prime },\mathbf{f})$ to $(-\mathbf{u},-p^{\prime },-\mathbf{f})$ when all imposed boundary velocities and disturbance forces are reversed; $p^{\prime }$ is pressure relative to any unchanged hydrostatic pressure. Linearity of Stokes flow and Uniqueness of Stokes flow therefore reverse the entire velocity field. If the driving schedule and evolving geometry are retraced, fluid elements retrace their paths too. Reversing just one drive while leaving another applied force unchanged does not meet these conditions.

This reversal concerns the paths, while viscous dissipation remains positive: for a sphere, the required power $6\pi \mu a{U}^2$ is unchanged by $U\mapsto -U$. A reversed experiment must supply fresh energy. Inertia, Brownian motion and irreversible contact can prevent perfect retracing. Edward M. Purcell illustrated the mechanism with a viscous fluid flow demonstration in Life at low Reynolds number, American Journal of Physics 45, 3–11 (1977).

Kinetic energy is the energy associated with motion. For a nonrelativistic point mass of mass $m>0$, measured in a specified inertial frame,Here $\mathbf{v}$ is velocity and $v$ is speed; $T$ is another common symbol for kinetic energy. The dot product makes $K$ nonnegative regardless of the direction of velocity. At fixed mass, doubling speed quadruples kinetic energy: a $2\mathrm{kg}$ point mass at $2m/s$ has $4\mathrm{J}$, whereas at $4m/s$ it has $16\mathrm{J}$. The SI units are $\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2/{\mathrm{s}}^2=\mathrm{J}$. Different reference frames can assign different velocities and therefore different kinetic energies. ^[ref]

A short outline explains why kinetic energy has this formula. In a nonrelativistic inertial frame, constant mass and Newton's second law give, using the chain rule,Integrating over time proves the work-energy theorem, $W_{\mathrm{net}}=K_f-K_i$. The net force is the sum of all forces, and $W_{\mathrm{net}}$ is their total work, not merely the work of a chosen driving force. This route to final speed is useful when the forces as functions of position are known but the full motion as a function of time would be harder to find. ^[ref]

In the running example, a $2\mathrm{kg}$ point mass starts at rest and receives a constant net $3\mathrm{N}$ force through $4\mathrm{m}$. Its net work is $12\mathrm{J}$, soAt any intermediate distance $x\ge 0$, $K(x)=(3\mathrm{N})x$ and $v(x)=\sqrt{2Fx/m}$: kinetic energy is a linear function of distance, while speed is proportional to the square root of distance. If a net opposing $3\mathrm{N}$ braking force subsequently acts for $4\mathrm{m}$, it does $-12\mathrm{J}$ of work and brings this point mass to rest. Negative net work decreases kinetic energy; it does not make kinetic energy negative. Beyond the stopping point the motion must be reconsidered, since the point mass cannot keep moving forward with a negative $K$.

Kinetic energy also makes the exchange with potential energy intuitive: a falling body's loss of gravitational potential energy can appear as increased kinetic energy. The formula above applies when speed is small compared with the speed of light; at higher speeds, special relativity changes the expression. ^[ref]